Wow, UK has lost freedom of speech

[psionl0]

Seriously? You think calling for Jews to be murdered when your audience are anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian extremists us not reckless?

Seriously? You think you can change her comments from "speaking out in favour of a proscribed organization" to "calling for Jews to be murdered" and nobody will notice?

 

[smartcooky]

Seriously? You think you can change her comments from "speaking out in favour of a proscribed organization" to "calling for Jews to be murdered" and nobody will notice?

Let me walk you through the chain of facts

FACT 1. Hamas and Palestinian Action are proscribed organizations.

FACT 2A. Hamas is proscribed because it is a terrorist organization.

FACT 2B. Palestinian Action is proscribed because it promotes and encourages terrorism and both publicizes and promotes such attacks.

FACT 3. Both Hamas and Palestinian Action have the clearly stated foundational aim to kill Jews, as many as they can, with the aim to eradicate all of them.

FACT 4. If you support, or speak in favour of Hamas and/or Palestinian Action, or if you are wearing the insignia and/or carrying the flags of either organization, then you automatically support the murder of Jews.

FACT 5. If you are OK with allowing people like Rahmeh Aldawan to carry out the actions she does, as outlined in FACT 4 above, then you too are OK with murdering Jews.

 

[psionl0]

FACT 4. If you support, or speak in favour of Hamas and/or Palestinian Action, or if you are wearing the insignia and/or carrying the flags of either organization, then you automatically are deemed to support the murder of Jews.

ftfy.

It doesn't change the fact that it is a crime to express an unpopular opinion (speak in favour of a proscribed organization) just because a legal fiction is employed. It is just another version of "if you don't support government surveillance then you are into kiddie porn" or "if you don't support the war on drugs then you are a drug pusher".

 

[smartcooky]

ftfy.

You FTFY fixed nothing. Legally "are deemed to" = "automatically"

It doesn't change the fact that it is a crime to express an unpopular opinion (speak in favour of a proscribed organization) just because a legal fiction is employed.

Its not a legal fiction. Its the law

It is just another version of "if you don't support government surveillance then you are into kiddie porn" or "if you don't support the war on drugs then you are a drug pusher".

False analogies. Both of them

 

[psionl0]

You FTFY fixed nothing. Legally "are deemed to" = "automatically"

Exactly. Of course you chose the word "automatically" to try and imply that it was an actual fact rather than just a legal matter.

Its not a legal fiction. Its the law

Any time you are "deemed" to have committed an act or intended to commit an act regardless of the facts of the matter, you are dealing with a legal fiction. It is an abhorrent abuse of legislative powers. There is a reason why the US constitution bans "Bills of Attainder".

False analogies. Both of them

Not at all. The government could just as easily create legislation that "deems" you to have accessed child porn or sold drugs to a minor if you speak out against the relevant laws.

 

[smartcooky]

Exactly. Of course you chose the word "automatically" to try and imply that it was an actual fact rather than just a legal matter.

Tomato, tomato

Any time you are "deemed" to have committed an act or intended to commit an act regardless of the facts of the matter, you are dealing with a legal fiction.

Nope. That is not how anything works

It is an abhorrent abuse of legislative powers.

It is a correct use of legislative powers

There is a reason why the US constitution bans "Bills of Attainder".

Yes, there is, but its not the reason you think, and that reason does not apply here. The framers of the US constitution banned it to prevent the government from punishing specific individuals or groups without trial.

The situation with Aldawan (and others like her) is nothing like a bill of attainder, because she will get a trial, overseen by the judiciary - a judge (not the government) and decided by a jury (not the government).

Not at all. The government could just as easily create legislation that "deems" you to have accessed child porn or sold drugs to a minor if you speak out against the relevant laws.

Nope, you have committed the fallacy of the politician's syllogism, which takes the form...

1. All cats have four legs.
2. My dog has four legs.
3. Therefore, my dog is a cat.

In the inference that you have committed the crime by supporting a terrorist organization, there is a two way connection... supporter <> terrorist
In the inference that you have committed the crime by opposing surveillance there is only a one way connection... offender > objection

 

[psionl0]

Nope. That is not how anything works


It is a correct use of legislative powers

Special Pleading.

In the inference that you have committed the crime by supporting a terrorist organization, there is a two way connection... supporter <> terrorist

terrorist > supporter is arguably true but supporter > terrorist is not (unless evidence is provided to the contrary). The law just says we don't have to show that evidence. We can just deem it to be true.

In the inference that you have committed the crime by opposing surveillance there is only a one way connection... offender > objection

There is nothing to prevent the Parliament making a law that deems objection > offender to be true.

The only difference is that you support one case and not the other.

 

[smartcooky]

Special Pleading.


terrorist > supporter is arguably true but supporter > terrorist is not (unless evidence is provided to the contrary). The law just says we don't have to show that evidence. We can just deem it to be true.


There is nothing to prevent the Parliament making a law that deems objection > offender to be true.

The only difference is that you support one case and not the other.

You have a problem with law that holds terrorists and their supporters accountable, so that means you support terrorism.... see how that works?

Simply put, you have a problem with laws that ban terrorism and its supporters. I don't. We differ - such is life.

 

[psionl0]

You have a problem with law that holds terrorists and their supporters accountable, so that means you support terrorism.... see how that works?

This is what I have been trying to explain to you. Instead of requiring evidence, just deem a causal link to exist. Legal fiction!

 

[smartcooky]

This is what I have been trying to explain to you. Instead of requiring evidence, just deem a causal link to exist. Legal fiction!

This is what I have been trying to explain to you. The wearing of a Hamas insignia IS evidence of support. The carrying of a Hamas flag IS evidence of support. That is the law.

 

[psionl0]

This is what I have been trying to explain to you. The wearing of a Hamas insignia IS evidence of support. The carrying of a Hamas flag IS evidence of support. That is the law.

But not proof. That is why you need a law that deems you to be a terrorist if you speak out in favour of a proscribed organization. We can't have anybody expressing unpopular opinions.

 

[smartcooky]

But not it is proof if the law says it is. That is why you need we have a law that deems you to be a terrorist if you speak out in favour of a proscribed organization. We can't have anybody expressing unpopular opinions supporting terrorists.

FTFY

You personally might not like that standard of evidence, but that is a different argument.

 

[psionl0]

FTFY

You personally might not like that standard of evidence, but that is a different argument.

Your mashing of my quote shows that it is not me who doesn't like that standard of evidence but the law itself. It has to artificially declare you guilty instead of hoping that the evidence itself is compelling. How else are you going to criminalize free speech?

 

[Thermal]

FTFY

You personally might not like that standard of evidence, but that is a dferent argument.

Why in the world would you color black text...black?

 

[smartcooky]

Your mashing of my quote shows that it is not me who doesn't like that standard of evidence but the law itself. It has to artificially declare you guilty instead of hoping that the evidence itself is compelling. How else are you going to criminalize free speech?

It does no such thing. it is compelling evidence sufficient to convict you in court just as are the following.

Seen behind the wheel in on the wrong side of the road just prior to a fatal accident is compelling evidence you were the driver and at fault
Standing over the body of a dead person, covered in blood with a knife in your hand is compelling evidence you are the murderer
Having $100,000 new $100 serial notes your possession a day after a robbery of $100,000 in serial $100 notes is compelling evidence you stole it.

Unless you think those are legal fictions too!

 

[psionl0]

It does no such thing. it is compelling evidence sufficient to convict you in court just as are the following.

Seen behind the wheel in on the wrong side of the road just prior to a fatal accident is compelling evidence you were the driver and at fault
Standing over the body of a dead person, covered in blood with a knife in your hand is compelling evidence you are the murderer
Having $100,000 new $100 serial notes your possession a day after a robbery of $100,000 in serial $100 notes is compelling evidence you stole it.

Unless you think those are legal fictions too!

False equivalence.

The examples you listed are evidence of the crime of manslaughter/murder/robbery and a jury still has the final say on whether the evidence is strong enough to convict.

In the case of speaking in favour of a proscribed organization, it is not evidence of the crime of incitement, it is the crime itself.

 

[jeremyp]

But not proof. That is why you need a law that deems you to be a terrorist if you speak out in favour of a proscribed organization. We can't have anybody expressing unpopular opinions.

No. You don't need a law that deems you a terrorist. The law is that you must not support a terrorist organisation. If you support a terrorist organisation by speaking out in favour of a terrorist organisation, that is proof of supporting it.

I support Bristol Bears rugby club. I buy tickets from them and go to the games. I talk them up in the pub. If there was a law against supporting rugby clubs, I would be guilty, even though I don't play rugby.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Seriously? You think calling for Jews to be murdered when your audience are anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian extremists us not reckless?

Hey at least there isn't a problem with anyone thinking calling for ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people is reckless.

 

[smartcooky]

False equivalence.

No, it isn't.

The examples you listed are evidence of the crime of manslaughter/murder/robbery and a jury still has the final say on whether the evidence is strong enough to convict.

Wearing the insignia of a terrorist organisation, or praising them is evidence of the crime of supporting them, and a jury still has the final say on whether the evidence is strong enough to convict.

In the case of speaking in favour of a proscribed organization, it is not evidence of the crime of incitement, it is the crime itself.

No. The crime being committed is not incitement, the crime is supporting a terrorist organisation. Speaking in favour of it is evidence of the commission of that crime.

 

[angrysoba]

No, it isn't.

Wearing the insignia of a terrorist organisation, or praising them is evidence of the crime of supporting them, and a jury still has the final say on whether the evidence is strong enough to convict.

No. The crime being committed is not incitement, the crime is supporting a terrorist organisation. Speaking in favour of it is evidence of the commission of that crime.

It seems that you are a hypocrite on freedom of speech.

Nobody seriously believes Palestine Action is a terrorist organization. They have been involved in vandalism, yes, and of course many people find "direct action" annoying, which is part of the point. The same goes for groups that YOU support, smartcooky, such as Greenpeace. It is the very designation of these groups as terrorist organizations which is the attack on freedom of speech. You can disagree with their politics over things like BDS or whatever, and no "Palestinian Action" [sic] do NOT "have the clearly stated foundational aim to kill Jews, as many as they can, with the aim to eradicate all of them." That is simply a complete lie, and the hundreds of people who have been arrested at protests were entirely peaceful. The police can do little but apply the law, just as they apply the law when arresting or cautioning people who make "transphobic comments". I am pretty sure that you don't just glibly cite the laws under which people who misgender are hauled away as if that was good enough for you. In that case, it shouldn't be good enough for you that some elderly people holding a copy of Private Eye or a banner that says "Stop Genocide" on it should be hauled away. If you are exercised by the principles of freedom of expression rather than merely a narrow desire to support people accused of transphobia, then it should outrage you that these terrorism laws are being abused to shut people up just for stating their opinions.