jeremyp
Philosopher
Somebody in the British government does.
Wow, UK has lost freedom of speech
- Thread starter Hercules56
- Start date
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Wrong. I have made my position clear. That you don't understand it is YP.
You're right that nobody believes Palestine Action is a terrorist organization - that because it isn't, and no-one is claiming it to be one. It is a proscribed organization because it supports, promotes and encourages terrorism. Through its media output, Palestine Action publicises and promotes its attacks involving serious property damage, and praises and promotes acts of terrorism by Hamas, as well as celebrating the perpetrators.
Wrong. Greenpeace is not a proscribed orgaizatiom. It does NOT promote or encourage terrorism. They even criticize the Sea Shepherd Society for going too far in its more direct protests in the southern ocean.
Designation of Hamas as a terrorist organzation is an attack on free speech? Really? Nice to see where your sympathies lie I guess.
Correct. Instead, they support those organizations that do "have the clearly stated foundational aim to kill Jews, as many as they can, with the aim to eradicate all of them." In either case, that leads to proscription.
Yes, people have a right to protest, but they do not have a right to violent protest, they do not have a right to cause property damage.
Palestinian Action broke into a restricted area on a military base and committed acts of vandalism. WTF did they expect would happen after they did that?! .... WTF did YOU expect would happen after they did that?!
Umm, no they were not. They were violent. They attacked police officers. Peaceful protesters go quietly when arrested or are being taken away.
For example, the JSO crowd, for all the criticism they got, when people got annoyed with them and started assaulting them, squirting them with water or pepper spray, tried to drag them away by the hair, or tried to force throught their lines with cars, they responded with total passivity and no resistence. THAT is what peaceful protest actually looks like!!
Calling a transgender identified male a man/male is not terrorism; its not violence, its speaking scientific reality.
False equivalence. You obviously have a total lack of understanding of the law and of reality
Terrorists KILL PEOPLE. They blow up school buses, schools, places of worship, media offices, airliners, tube trains, commuter buses, raliway stations. They fly airliners into buildings for of people, they plant bombs in buildings to bring them down, they commit suicide boming attacked on embassies
What you call transphobes (which are actually defenders of women's rights) DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. They are NOT terrorists.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Breach of Rule 12 and 0
Correct. Terrorists kill people and Palestine Action do not do this. They also do NOT call for killing of Jews.
This is a lie...
Yes, of course Hamas have that aim, and nowhere have I said anything otherwise. Your attempt to smear me as some kind of Hamas supporter is complete ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.
Bull ◊◊◊◊! Look at the pictures of these people. 500 were arrested for holding placards. Not for "attacking police officers".
They are not even members. They are holding signs that say they support Palestine Action, NOT Hamas.
Link
Anyway, you are proving my point that you don't give a fig about freedom of expression, only the expression that you like.
Edited by Darat:
Breach of Rule 12 removed.
Last edited by a moderator:
angrysoba
Philosophile
So which is it? A terrorist organization or not, smartcooky?
Also, it is called Palestine Action. Repeatedly getting the name wrong while pretending to be knowledgeable makes you look dim.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
No, they didn't. However it'd a useful tool to criminalise people who express the wrong opinions and embarrass the government.
jeremyp
Philosopher
Actually, judging by the timing, it's more that the government got pissed off at the criminal damage its members were doing to its property and that of its contractors.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
In reality, the impact and reasons run the gamut. My BFF in high school was heartbroken and terrified when they had an abortion at 16. Alternatively, a friend in my 30s had 3 abortions in 2 years with no apparent trauma, and essentially viewed it as "backup" for when they got hot and heavy and didn't want to slow down for a condom, and they didn't want to use oral birth control because that was too hard.
I genuinely don't think that the abortions themselves are traumatic for most of the people who have them. For some, being pregnant is what's considered traumatic... but I think youse are underestimating the volume of people who don't view an abortion as a traumatic choice to end a budding life, but rather as a convenient medical procedure that gives them greater control over their life.
And for those of you inlined to amp up every damned post into an end-of-the-world horrific drama-trauma episode... I have no objection to abortions whatsoever. I don't give a crap what a person's reasons are, whether it's financially necessary, or in response to a rape, or simply convenient. I have some objection to voluntary abortions after viability, simply because at some point it's no longer just a fetus, and it really is a baby. But I'm pretty flexible on how late that viability line should be set, and I'm very strongly opposed to it being set prior to at least 27 weeks. Personally, I think somewhere around 30 weeks is reasonable.
jeremyp
Philosopher
I think this whole post is moot in the context of this thread.
Even if the vast majority of women think abortion is a laugh (I'm sure they don't) there are definitely some who find the process traumatic. There are some who find the idea of running the gauntlet of protestors literally accusing them of murder traumatic. There are clinic staff who find the idea of running the gauntlet of protestors literally accusing them of murder traumatic.
I don't think the steps taken in the UK to shield them from these protestors are unreasonable even if the majority of staff and patients are not bothered.
Helen
Implicitly explicit
I have met many women who have had abortions, and only a couple who did so with a completely light heart. But I agree, it shouldn't really matter - abortion should be free no matter what, but to me the point is that trauma is not visible; you do not know just from looking at anyone seeking an abortion whether it is traumatising or not. And that person has not consented to debate the issue, if you are protesting, you are forcing them to take part. Turn to the people in power, if you want change, make your voice heard where it matters, but don't make a public spectacle if individuals seeking medical care.
Or just ◊◊◊◊ off home, and mind your own business, instead of trying to interfere in the decisions that ought to be made by people concerned and their doctors. That would work as well.
Or just ◊◊◊◊ off home, and mind your own business, instead of trying to interfere in the decisions that ought to be made by people concerned and their doctors. That would work as well.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
I agree with this completely... but I'll also note that a HUGE number of protests don't do that. There are a ton of protests that don't address the government, they address the group of entities that they think are the problem. For example... Occupy Wall Street didn't address the government to change regulations, they literally targeted the exchange and everyone who works there.
I agree with your premise, I would like that extended to all protests and not pick and choose which get to target people and entities as opposed to government agencies.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Conservative party member sues over censorship....
www.theguardian.com
Ex-Tory member sues party over suspension for criticising Israel
Exclusive: Bruce MacInnes, whose grandfather was archbishop of Jerusalem, told genocide remarks were antisemitic
www.theguardian.com
Helen
Implicitly explicit
Note the word individuals. Entities and organisations are fair game, if you ask me. But then maybe you think such entities never think change could be good and necessary? In that case, of course, government regulations in order to force them to change are necessary.
I didn't think you were a fan of Big Government.
Last edited:
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
I really get tired of these artificially constructed boxes that so many people want to force others into.
I'm not a fan of "big government", nor am I a fan of "small government". I want right-sized government that does its job and isn't wasteful. Similarly, I'm not "anti-regulation", but I am "anti-stupid-or-ineffective-regulation".
Helen
Implicitly explicit
I completely agree that government should be the right size, do its job, and nit be wasteful, and I am also anti-stupid-or-ineffectual-regulation. Most people would agree. Not that those words make anything clearer, but we are in agreement.
Which is why I thought it odd that you seemed to be of the opinion that organisations/entities cannot change unless the government gets involved, since you said that protests should only target the government. As far as I was concerned, you seemed yo be putting yourself in a box.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
I don't understand where you're concluding that I think organizations or entities can't change unless the government is involved. Especially given that I said protests should target the source of the issue, rather than targeting individuals engaging in legal behavior. I think there might be some miscommunication here.
Helen
Implicitly explicit
Nvm
Last edited:
Helen
Implicitly explicit
You made a distinction between people snd entities as opposed to government agencies in the first quote. (I would also argue that some individuals have consented to being "targets", if it comes with a position they have freely chosen.)
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
UK Police pay out £20K to family falsely arrested over posts on WhatsApp
www.bbc.com
It was a PRIVATE Whatsapp group.
Three Police cars and six cops to arrest people for some social media posts (you can't get one to come if you're burgled).
Both parents arrested in front of their three year old.
They are never told which posts triggered the arrests.
The police claim the arrests were signed off at "Inspector Level" so this is not rogue beat cops going off the reservation.
The worst post they can find is the Mum referring the the headmaster as a "control freak" (i.e. hurty words)
Both parents held in cells for 12 hours.
The process IS the punishment. £20K is not enough - should have been £200K for what they were put through!
I'll be interested to hear from those here who support the idea of the "Speech Police" arresting people for hurty words, to tell us all what their justifications are as to why these arrests were fair and reasonable.
And despite the fact the left here will not like TalkTV (because they think its a voice for radical, far-right thugs... apparently), here is an interview with the father in which he explains what happens. Does this man come across as a far-right thug?
Hertfordshire Police admit WhatsApp arrest error with £20k payout
A couple unlawfully arrested over complaints about their child's school say police have paid them damages.
www.bbc.com
It was a PRIVATE Whatsapp group.
Three Police cars and six cops to arrest people for some social media posts (you can't get one to come if you're burgled).
Both parents arrested in front of their three year old.
They are never told which posts triggered the arrests.
The police claim the arrests were signed off at "Inspector Level" so this is not rogue beat cops going off the reservation.
The worst post they can find is the Mum referring the the headmaster as a "control freak" (i.e. hurty words)
Both parents held in cells for 12 hours.
The process IS the punishment. £20K is not enough - should have been £200K for what they were put through!
I'll be interested to hear from those here who support the idea of the "Speech Police" arresting people for hurty words, to tell us all what their justifications are as to why these arrests were fair and reasonable.
And despite the fact the left here will not like TalkTV (because they think its a voice for radical, far-right thugs... apparently), here is an interview with the father in which he explains what happens. Does this man come across as a far-right thug?